Skip to main content
6:00 pm
the hearing officer has not been exercising his discretion within the s m f order he's permitted to approve one of the property locations he's not required to request public no less but can he can approve with modifications or hold the hearing open. we suggest if you're not going to reserve the other appropriate solution is to have the department follow the rules. if the hearing officer had concerns with better locations that would be discussed during the box walks held the hearing open and taken the written comments and made a decision. >> along those same lines are you saying that the hearing
6:01 pm
officer never made the suggestion for additional notice. >> in 20 of the 21 appeals the hearing officer did not hold the hearing open and the vast majority of the fact story it's exactly the same with the ralph street location one of two things happened one scenario was for the first eight or nine appeals during the box walk it worked like it was supposed to so at&t and in some cases denver went out and kashgd conducted the walks to see g if there were less impact full locations the community would be okay with. >> i understand that the hearing were not open my question was related to whether or not the hearing officer suggested that additional notice
6:02 pm
was appropriate? >> he simply closed the hearing and denied on the basis there might be other acceptable locations which is not something he's allowed to do. what he could have done to hold the hearing open and if there's other acceptable sites that the public suggested or dpw suggested that require at&t to renotice and give the public 7 days to provide additional protests or suggestions and follow the rule and make the recommendations. thank you for your time >> mr. quan from the public
6:03 pm
works once again. >> at&t has suggested in many cases the department should hold one of the possibility is for the department to hold it open for 20 days and have at&t notice those additional people based on a 7 day period. we've stated before that previously the original group was given a 20 day notice to provide comments youe suggesting is for the department to accelerate it if it's the case would at&t stipulate or law to 20 day posting instead of 7 instead of agreeing that's what the order said the location can be far away from where the original box is proposed and
6:04 pm
they could be visiting a separate set of folks. after a notification period by the after we authorized the posting period at&t would have the box walk. we observe the number of people showing up or recorded as showing up are you significantly less than the number of people obtained didn't appear to showed you that you have necessarily a true representation of the community there. i know there are discussions in certain cases what we identify there's been several situations where at&t is part of the hearing reported out they schedule a box walk and no one showed up it appears to the
6:05 pm
departments prospective that at&t may not necessary low be working the community as strongly as they could have to get more participation from the people that observed to identify possible locations which is more appropriate to the community and the general public in this case. the good at&t continues to refer back to the order stating that the choices are limited for the hearing officer. that they must authorize a site. well in some cases there's only one site because no one shows up and at&t may offer no alternative site. which places the department in
6:06 pm
position well, you only have one site you must approve it doesn't seem appropriate in this case why would the department hold a hearing when theirs only one available site we believe there is a choice that we can suggest that this site is inappropriate and should be denied and they should reset and start over as under the workflow of the order itself. i'm done thank you >> okay. we will take public comment on group one before anyone gets up i want to see a show of hands how many people want to speak. i want to do this by address so it will help the board to clarify public comment for each
6:07 pm
location we'll also take public comment at the end if there's mop that want to speak on ralph street. and again, if you have not done so, please fill out a speaker card and give it to the clerk. so each speaker has 3 minutes >> so hello. thank you for the time to speak i'm mike smith the treasurer at ralph our building spans one through 17. i'm certainly noted a lawyer on city code so i can't comment but offer up context how we perceive the situation we received an e-mail and we intended what
6:08 pm
seemed to be a heated community meeting that at&t came to we wanted to communicate with them trying to see the best way to resolve this. we at the present time, we spoke to at&t we offered to engage them in the box walk and offered up space in our basement we offered up that thinking that might be a best option for the company at&t indeed came out and did the box walk with one of the folks and an owner across the street. as we understand as alternative was identified there was no commitment made at the box walk. at the same time, we filed a
6:09 pm
petition that alternatives had been identified. n role forward to the meeting in january one of our board members attended the week we heard not harder back from at&t the alternative was chemistry and we have no other venue to participate at this point. at this point we thought the issue was closed and at the hearing our hoa board meeting was informed that we thought the issue was closed and accessed activity we got a postcard for this year hearing and didn't know the context actually, we showed up that's all i can offer >> who told you the alternative was selected.
6:10 pm
>> i wasn't the representative at the meeting i know that our representative was communicated to so he waited around actually f it came up on the list even if locations and was informed it had been resolved. >> thank you. any other public comment for 89 ralph. 1157 church street. >> hi i live at 11 61 church street i have to say i find it ironic that at&t is stressing that we didn't follow due process in the city of san francisco when i feel they didn't fellow protocol this is
6:11 pm
the notice we received from at&t. i'm going to move it up and to me it's full of errors it has the wrong address and wrong scale and didn't give adequate information i don't know how someone could respond if the objection period was 7 days. let's just look at what they sent to us. here it is again, the picture that they provided not showing the pedestal or the actual size so i put it more to scale to give you an idea how intrusive this truly is and how by sending out those noise perhaps people
6:12 pm
didn't know the scale and intrusiveness of those boxes. when it comes to due process i feel perhaps there is error on both sides through i don't know what the hearing officer job is. back to the original subject this is our home we like to put in a garage as most people in the city of san francisco to put in a garage with that box we wouldn't be able to do that are the at&t representative on the walk through also stated it would be impossible to put in a garage with our planned entrance. that was at&t stated the box should not be in front of our house. this is what the boxes look
6:13 pm
like. so far as i can tell. when we're talking about at least impact i can't help but think people villaraigosa >>right. to express what goes in front of their homes and not allowing me to install a garage is considered at least impact. we offered to hire an architect we did the walk through it took over a month and it was scheduled in the middle of a work day but we took the time off work and went. you can see there's surrounding businesses there are places for
6:14 pm
them to go that don't impede personal properties >> any more comments on church street? >> i also live on church street and want to show some documents that we received from at&t. >> would you like to state our name. >> i'm lisa. in the first initial contact we received 55 e-mail about the walk through it says here we're committed to addressing the concerns of the community and would like to work with you to find a suitable location well, there's been no inform through with that we haven't heard from
6:15 pm
at&t expect to get the information about the appeals and what we received was this document. from the department of public works. stating that alternative locations had been found and also at the hearing was a representative from at&t who also agents that the alternative location was fine and suitable to at&t. so there's be a little bit of conflict was to what to building i don't want this box in front of my house. thank you >> monthly for church street. oak 1503 jones. no one for 1503 jones. now the next one
6:16 pm
>> i live on this block since 1988 and here to support of hearing officers denial on this spot. i have a diagram here. showing the boxes of the supported to be here attica do it and but there are many children running from the bus station on 30th avenue and california along this sidewalk to the middle school at the end of the block this is the
6:17 pm
presidio middle school and this is the box and this is the bus station and i took 80 a picture of this box and you can see it's all open space and the kids in the morning when the sun is in the south the sunlight on their face they don't see that well, and some of them when we run fast and run late and they don't see in front of them. i see kids running into garbage cans on friday morning they don't see it their run when their late to i think some kids will definitely get serious injured if we allow the box on
6:18 pm
this location here. the neighbors are strongly opposed to this box but another alternative for at&t is on the sidewalk on california between 30th and 29th avenue and the box is two be in between the trees and not that many people walk on that sidewalk and people don't even see that box that easily so i think this hearing officer by denying at&t that spot protected the safety of the students at the presidio middle school. thank you >> any other public comment for 315, 30th avenue.
6:19 pm
>> hi i'm beatrice. we are here to urge the board to uphold the hearing officers opinion to deny this on 30th avenue. to reiterate we believe those at&t box are a nuance furthermore, we express our concern over the safety of installing an at&t box at the location if a box were to the installed that would create a hazard as bob my neighbor said this is a sidewalk route that is used by students. those students run to catch the one cool bus or play around with
6:20 pm
their friends they often look backwards at the friends. at&t has identified an alternative location around 6, 72 california street and the alternative location is a relatively quiet area that gets very little foot traffic. we therefore respectfully ask to uphold the hearing officer decision and ask this be denied >> any other public comment for 315, 30th. okay 17852 ann district attorney. seeing none, 120 balboa.
6:21 pm
303 as an carlos and 121 as an karlsz >> i'm joel becker the back of our building face where this box will be our neighborhood and everyone on the alley put protests to the box and we met with at&t on the 5th of june and the representatives from at&t said it was a terrible location there's a cafe there's that's permitted by the department of public works and there's a significant interact of traffic problem we identified an
6:22 pm
alternative that location was further brought and app at&t was and i memorable to the location. it was mentioned that the 55 protests was one of the largest ever seen i brought a petition with more than a bosses distinct homes protesting the location at the 121 as an carlos and at&t is arguing they believe this is good for the community and once approved the community has no weight we recommend that the board uphold the hearing officer decision. thank you >> thank you. is there another speaker for 121, please step
6:23 pm
forward. >> good evening. i'm andrew barnett. i'm the owner of a small business at the one proposed 121 as an carl street i have a cafe we're 2 hundred and 92 square feet we metropolitan met with the representative for the box walk and our neighbors were told by the at&t representative, in fact, proposed site was not a good location and at&t would seek another location. i also explained at this time i was opening up a new coveting where the proposed box would sit in the middle of our outdoor
6:24 pm
seating and not allow to have the clearance from the table to the curb. again at&t representatives said they'll find an alternative location. december 17th we had a hearing and told there would be a rendering from the commission on this. i'm confused why we're here tonight after this seems like i would think that at&t said they understood this is why we're having this hearing. i have an iphone photo i'll put it up this is a picture of our location our little cafe our outdoor seating and the proposed
6:25 pm
box would be in the middle of the property space on the curb and not allow us to have our outdoor seating we have a permit for outdoors seating from the public works and it's not viable to put this promoted boxing box at this site >> other comment, however, elsie street. 15 germany rad street. please step forward and good evening ladies and gentlemen, i'm the owner of the house on germany rad street i want to dmrar any petition in mounting the facility at that place i won
6:26 pm
of the my objection the at&t cabinet would be an eye soar and attract bad things. the 415 germany rad street the at&t cabinet will pose an undue burden on the prove or disprove. the at&t cabinet are inhabit the enlarging and existing at the curbside. the at&t cabinet will cabinet will change the residential air to a more commercial area. the at&t cabinet will disturb the function of the adjacent
6:27 pm
property. i don't think the big company like at&t should be louder than the minority. ladies and gentlemen, i hope you consider this situation and here's the copy of the letter i first sent to the at&t and department of public works for your again to reference. please we see my statements and thank you very much. >> would you like to state your name for the record. >> and i less than lee. this is the first copy of the letter i sent to at&t and public works. thank you. >> okay. thank you. is there any other public comment for geraldo street go ahead >> i'm allen chow a few facts
6:28 pm
it says 415 geraldo street but no residents on this the box is in front of my mothers place which is the southeast corner of bacon and germany rad. i'm not clear i want to ask mr. quan b >> but you should address the board. >> i want to know why the dpw stopped the vacation r evacuation or to dig up the necessary ground to install the box that they wish to place on the northwest corner of back on
6:29 pm
they agreed to move that from what it would have been a common box and that's why we observed to this as a companion box we want this to go through we don't want them to come back and to place it where they wanted to originally place it to an exist box in front of my mothers place that's why i want the denial to be overturned. thank you >> thank you. okay. so any other public comment for germany rad street
6:30 pm
or any comment for group one any of those addresses. seeing none, we'll start with rebuttal from at&t you have 3 minutes >> so i'd like to make 3 brief points the first thing. >> talk into the microphone. >> sorry commissioner president lazarus. i want to thank everyone who came out in this process because i think that the people make the point in a much more powerful way. what you heard over and over was the notice was given and there were box walks and the community said we don't think your proposed location works you should use this alternative place